Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2016 Jul;25(3):366-76. doi: 10.1017/S0963180115000705.

Choosing Wisely.

Abstract

The American College of Physicians in its ethics manual endorsed the idea that physicians ought to improve their ability to provide care to their patients more parsimoniously. This elicited a critical backlash; critics essentially claimed that what was being endorsed was a renamed form of rationing. In a recent article, Tilburt and Cassel argued that parsimonious care and rationing are ethically distinct practices. In this essay I critically assess that claim. I argue that in practice there is considerable overlap between what they term parsimonious care and what they define as rationing. The same is true of the Choosing Wisely campaign endorsed by the American Board of Internal Medicine. In both cases, if the goal is to control healthcare costs by reducing the use of marginally beneficial care that is not cost effective, then a public conversation about the justness of specific choices is essential.

KEYWORDS:

Choosing Wisely; democratic deliberation; diagnostic uncertainty; healthcare justice; healthcare rationing; marginal benefits; overdiagnosis; parsimonious care

PMID:
27348821
DOI:
10.1017/S0963180115000705
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Cambridge University Press
Loading ...
Support Center